Given that Romney has been political chameleon his whole career were we can have an effect is the background he plays against. VP, platform, Cabinet - even the House and Senate are all in play and ripe for conservative agitation.

We can have almost no effect on any of that. How exactly can we control who goes in Romney's cabinet? Those aren't up for a vote. As far as Congress, enough Republicans will simply go along with anything he does because of the "R" after his name. Bush Sr. got taxes raised by getting moderate Republicans and Democrats to agree on a plan when conservatives balked on a plan that would not have raised taxes as high as he did. We just saw the same thing take place on the student loan issue, as the WSJ explained it. The subsidized interest rate will add $6 billion to the deficit next year and risks becoming a permanent, untouchable entitlement. Romney agreed with Obama on it, and the House GOP went along with it because they didn't want to "embarrass" their nominee. This is how RINO presidents work, and why they don't win reelection. They totally disenchant the base and their liberal policy has the same bad effects it would under a Democrat. A Romney win paves the way for a Democrat takeover in 2014 and 2016 and the worst liberal policy you can imagine.

Has absolutely nothing to do with "my guy" logic. Plenty of us would have been fine with any mostly CONSERVATIVE nominee, be it Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, we'd probably even give Paul a shot. But Romney isn't even an option. It's like asking us to coalesce around Hillary Clinton. Neither are conservatives in any way, shape or form. More conservative than Obama, by a hair, maybe. But that's nothing a real conservative can settle for or rally behind. And if you want to argue strategy, gridlocking Obama with a Republican Congress for 4 years and then getting a conservative in there would probably be better than electing Romney.

56
posted on 04/29/2012 9:12:45 AM PDT
by JediJones
(From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)

As scary as a second Obama term might be, there is something infinitely scarier: American “conservatism” with no principles left.

There is no possible path back for this country without a return to this free republic’s moral principles, sir.

And when the only part of the electorate that could possibly lead such a return has abandoned any sense of right and wrong, purely out of fear or perceived political expedience, you’re creating the exact sort of political environment that led to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

58
posted on 04/29/2012 9:18:57 AM PDT
by EternalVigilance
(You can be a Romney Republican or you can be a conservative. You cant be both. Pick one.)

I guess it all depends on how you perceive Romney - as either a doctrinaire Liberal or as a previous poster noted "an ambitious weather vane". I see the weather vane. Everything is negotiable with this guy.

And if you want to argue strategy, gridlocking Obama with a Republican Congress for 4 years...

The Democrats were able to block Bork, so it is possible for the opposition to sink a nominee. We were about 5 votes away from filibustering Kagan, 8 for Sotomayor, but couldn’t block Kagan because of the RINOs like Lugar, Graham, Snowe, Collins, etc.

There is also the possibility to pass laws which invalidate some Supreme Court rulings. Of course Constitutionally-based ones would require passing an amendment, but I’m not too sure how much liberal policy could be defended on a constitutional basis, since those arguments often come down in favor of more free speech.

But it’s true that the ability to appoint judges at all levels would be one of Obama’s powers that would be more difficult to hold in check.

63
posted on 04/29/2012 9:50:28 AM PDT
by JediJones
(From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)

Republicans might be able to block one really-horrible Obama selection but then he would put up someone just as bad. If the person was a minority, it's less likely the Republicans will put up much of a fight. Remember Clinton's effort to pick an Attorney General--it took three tries but he got the kind of person he wanted (possibly worse than the two who were shot down).

I don't trust Romney on judges, but he could be pressured, especially in his first term if he hopes to get any conservative support for re-election. Like Mae West said to Cary Grant, "You can be had." We would have leverage with Romney, but none with Obama.

>All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

Well, obviously fun for everyone.
And by ‘fun’ I don’t mean CWII, because the Kelo decision should have done *that*; it was, after all, a decision saying that the government can justify taking your property with nothing more than imagining (projecting) that it would generate some sort of taxable income.

70
posted on 04/30/2012 8:44:09 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

>Frankly, at this point in history, all the Romney Republican fear-mongering about judges does is disgust and anger me.

You and me both.
I’d vote for Obama sooner than Romney because at least Obama would be more polarizing and uniting his opponents; though, to be honest, given how the GOP has acted I don’t think there’s much hope (for good governance) in either of the parties.

71
posted on 04/30/2012 8:47:39 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

>Name one conservative Mitt Romney named to the courts in Massachusetts.

They’re all conservative, in that they “keep” things the way they are.
(This is why I hate precedent; it is nothing less than judges playing a game of ‘telephone’ with the jurisprudence... and then excusing themselves from any responsibility by saying “it was already that way.”)

72
posted on 04/30/2012 8:49:53 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

>that will become a regret as our children and grandchild for generations get ruled on by Obama lasting court appointees.

That’s ridiculous on its face:
A SC Justice can be removed from office by 1) impeachment, & 2) committing a felony (Good behavior clause), and 3) assassination (why do you think they have US Marshall protection?).
The felony one would be absurdly easy to get them on; consider the Kelo decision wherein the court justified the use of a *projection* as satisfying the “public use” requirements of the 5th Amendment. US Code, Title 18, part 1, Sec 242 says:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
[...]
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This is a felony offense; and given that in order to have a majority opinion the USSC has to have more than one person concurring so the “two or more” is satisfied. Furthermore, using their own decision as “proof” of the “constitutionality” of the ruling would be invalid; for one thing it presupposes that the USSC is greater than the Constitution, having the authority to alter it at will... for another it is the very act in question.

73
posted on 04/30/2012 9:04:02 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.

He'd do less damage to the Constitution than would another Souter.

There may well come a time when there are five lawless judges on the Court. When that time comes, the only hope for the Republic will be for a significant portion of the populace to realize that although what the Constitution says, and what the Supreme Court says, will be one and the same when the court is doing its duty, there is nothing in the Supreme Law of the Land which gives the Supreme Court any authority to issue decisions contrary to it, much less anything which says such decisions should be regarded as superior to the Constitution.

The more overtly political the Court's leftist judges are, the more accepting people will be of the notion that an overt willingness on the part of some of the justices to ignore the Constitution does not change the Supreme Law of the Land. If in some case five judges openly ignore the Constitution, there may not be any remedy for the actual parties to that case, but nor is there any basis for declaring that the Constitution means the things claimed by judges who are overtly disregarding it.

Given that Romney has been political chameleon his whole career were we can have an effect is the background he plays against. VP, platform, Cabinet - even the House and Senate are all in play and ripe for conservative agitation.

I'm sorry, are you trying to tell us that Romney will move RIGHT as the campaign progresses???????

Good luck finding a Republican strategist (like Dick Morris) that agrees with that notion...

As far as Congress, enough Republicans will simply go along with anything he does because of the "R" after his name. Bush Sr. got taxes raised by getting moderate Republicans and Democrats to agree on a plan when conservatives balked on a plan that would not have raised taxes as high as he did. We just saw the same thing take place on the student loan issue, as the WSJ explained it. The subsidized interest rate will add $6 billion to the deficit next year and risks becoming a permanent, untouchable entitlement. Romney agreed with Obama on it, and the House GOP went along with it because they didn't want to "embarrass" their nominee. This is how RINO presidents work, and why they don't win reelection.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.